MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396978719 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2024.109972

Expression of GAD2 in excitatory neurons projecting from the ventrolateral periaqueductal gray to the locus coeruleus

2024· article· en· W4396978719 on OpenAlexafffund
Erika K. Harding, Zizhen Zhang, Júlia Canet-Pons, Sierra Stokes-Heck, Tuan Trang, Gerald W. Zamponi

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsLocus coeruleusPeriaqueductal grayNeuroscienceExcitatory postsynaptic potentialGray (unit)BiologyChemistryInhibitory postsynaptic potentialCentral nervous systemMidbrainMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ventrolateral periaqueductal gray (vlPAG) functionally projects to diverse brain regions, including the locus coeruleus (LC). Excitatory projections from the vlPAG to the LC are well described, while few studies have indicated the possibility of inhibitory projections. Here, we quantified the relative proportion of excitatory and inhibitory vlPAG-LC projections in male and female mice, and found an unexpected overlapping population of neurons expressing both GAD2 and VGLUT2. Combined in vitro optogenetic stimulation and electrophysiology of LC neurons revealed that vlPAG neurons expressing channelrhodopsin-2 under the GAD2 promoter release both GABA and glutamate. Subsequent experiments identified a population of GAD2+/VGLUT2+ vlPAG neurons exclusively releasing glutamate onto LC neurons. Altogether, we demonstrate that ∼25% of vlPAG-LC projections are inhibitory, and that there is a significant GAD2 expressing population of glutamatergic projections. Our findings have broad implications for the utility of GAD2-Cre lines within midbrain and brainstem regions, and especially within the PAG.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207